Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> CARE MANAGER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o24303 (20 August 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o24303.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o24303
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CARE MANAGER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o24303 (20 August 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o24303
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/243/03
- Decision date
- 20 August 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mrs A Corbett
- Mark
- CARE MANAGER
- Classes
- 09, 35, 36, 37, 42
- Applicant
- Chesterton International Plc
- Opponent
- DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG
- Opposition
- Sections 5(1); 5(2)(a) & 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition partially successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Identical marks.
- 2. Comparison of services; 'financial affairs' not the same as 'real estate affairs'.
Summary
The opponents were proprietors of the Community Trade Mark registration 'CareManager' in Class 36, in respect of "Insurance; financial affairs"; the opposition was directed at all the goods and services specified in the application.
The Hearing Officer considered that despite the very slight differences in the marks CAREMANAGER and CareManager they were identical; or they were as closely similar as it is possible to be without being identical.
After a careful review of the services in Class 36 the Hearing Officer found them similar. The remaining goods and services she found to be not similar, nor were they in competition with or complementary to those of the opponents. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded in respect of Class 36 and failed in respect of the remainder of the application. Subject to an appropriate amendment the application was permitted to proceed.
In view of the fact that the opposition had covered all five classes and succeeded only in respect of one, and in view of the applicants’ efforts to avoid a conflict by an offered amendment, the Hearing Officer decided that each side should bear its own costs.